Surprisingly incoherent and boring

A Brilliant Conflict

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Why have commentary from actors, mayors and former mayors? Why not use actual historians even if they have conflicting views? There are no sources cited, only opinion and the constant referring to the Continental Army as a 'band of rebels' reduces the importance of the Continentals to being just blithering rabble-rousers. Paul Revere was a political extremist?... as were John Adam, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Really? Far too much Progressive propaganda in this waste of film for my tastes, especially when the claims made by this series are so easily refuted by reputable sources that go well beyond the dubious opinions presented as fact.This series is a vast waste of time. Try John Adams (the series) or even the fantastic and epic The Patriot (Mel Gibson) as they deal with more fact than the ridiculous show reviewed here in.

I declare an interest. I am British, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, or tea, if you like. The history is more like propaganda for an idea of American history than an assessment of it. For example, General Colin Powell makes the pint that African-Americans fought in the Revolution, on the side of the colonists. True. But it is also true that more of them fought on the British side and for a very good reason. It was clear that the British were moving towards abolishing the slave trade and slavery itself, after the Sommersett case, whereas the colonists were clearly going to keep slavery. In fact the theme of the series is the "story of freedom", or rather the American project to achieve freedom for all, based on individual character, hard work etc. But why did it remain a "project" for so long, rather than the reality? The slaves worked hard, but they didn't get the reward. And the US was the last country but one in the West to abolish slavery, the last being Brazil. The film is no doubt well-intentioned and believes in its own theme. But history is always more complicated than simple narratives can convey. The truth is that the colonists were more concerned with breaking out of the 13 colonies to move West, taking the Indians land in the process. The colonists had been confined to the 13 colonies by the royal decree of George III which declared all other land to be native title. And the southern states fought to preserve slavery. And why contributions from actors such as Michael Douglas? because he played the president in a film? Why not have professional historians, even disagreeing with each other? And it curious that more he positive points are not made: that in the nineteenth century the US was the most democratic country in the world?

I can agree with other reviews that the narrator not pronouncing Antietam right is annoying. And the narrator is listed as Liev Schreiber, but it doesn't sound like Liev Schreiber to me, since I've since a lot of his films, but I guess it is. It's odd his voice doesn't sound like I am used to hearing it. Was it altered in some way?But other things people don't like, like comparing textile machine technology to computers was actually shown to me at our local (not defunct) computer museum. I saw a large chip that was actually handwoven. So that I don't mind, because it does come from a factual source.The graphics can get too CSI or Sci-Fi Channel at times, but are OK. They can be a bit violent, as to make people with children a bit uneasy in viewing them, since they are intense. One of my other complains was that the interview parts seemed to only copy VH1 style shows, where people comment without it meaning anything deep. Like you could take Brian Williams' comments about America being full of integrity and hard work and apply it to any of the stories here. I mean, fine, have college professors and history authors talk about this, why why Sheryl Crow and Donald Trump? Their comments seem out of place a lot of the time, like they were recorded for another show and lopped into this one.But besides all that, I think it is an OK show. OK, being C average. I heard that in America, the most successful people got Cs in school...so it's probably fitting. Not horrible, but not outstanding. Just Joe Average. 70%.If one person gets at least a vague US history time line from this show, someone who normally doesn't watch the History Channel...I feel then the show has done its job. If the CSI graphics draw a younger crowd, like people who liked the movie 300, then good. They probably learned something. And yes, maybe it does make some historical items seem more important than they should or jumps to an assumption here and there, but it's decent to watch and entertaining as a whole. I know so many people who know nothing about American History. Nothing. So if they leave at least knowing when the Civil War occurred, it's a great boon. One part of the show that I did enjoy was that it isn't all "We're #1!!!" like other American history shows are. The show points out how women, blacks and Native Americans were all treated like they had no rights or less than human. It shows how we basically got here and took over, fighting nature...which we probably should have done with such zest. It isn't sugarcoating anything. The stories presented in little vignettes containing a character or two, is a refreshing change from history shows that bombard the viewer with tons of information. I tend to retain more information from the vignette style, because it is more personal. It is more like hearing stories around the campfire. I am not a fact checker by any means either, but if something doesn't sound right to me, I would be compelled to look it up, which I haven't yet. I did like learning about people like Baron von Steuben, which though accused of being a homosexual, was still adopted into George Washington's army. I wonder if George Washington had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. :) But to me, that proves the greatness of America, that the Revolutionary Army accepted all types of people, that in time, we can rise past the sexist, racist and homophobic parts of our society and make this country a true melting pot, where people can live freely and have true liberty in their life's decisions.Some of the graphics were OK too, I liked when the buildings built themselves. And some of the war graphics. I mean, they have to fill the video with something!

I teach history for a living, so I wanted to watch America: The story of us to see if it would be a classroom resource worth buying. I watched 5 hours in and I simply couldn't take it anymore. The people they signed up to comment on history are simply bizarre... Sheryl Crow? P Diddy? Michael Douglas? Just because you played the President in a movie doesn't mean you're qualified to tell us about history. It looks like they spent a lot of money on CGI but chose the strangest things to produce graphics of. If you like to see graphics of hulls cutting through water, this is your show. I realize they have limited time and it's hard to get everything in there but they spent 50 minutes on the seminal moment in United States history (the Civil War) and 20 of those minutes were on embalming, photography and battlefield medicine. Ulysses S. Grant was mentioned 1 time in an advertisement, zero times during the show. Poor segues, little cohesion and little real history here.